SCIENCE vs. EVOLUTION

Chapter 7b:

The Primitive Environment

Why Raw Materials on Earth cannot Produce Life

5 - THE PRIMITIVE ATMOSPHERE

ATMOSPHERE WITHOUT OXYGEN—Could
a non-oxygen atmosphere ever have existed on Planet Earth? It surely
seems like an impossibility, yet evolutionary theorists have decided
that the primitive environment had to have a "reducing atmosphere,"
that is, one without any oxygen. Now,
the theorists do not really want such a situation, but they know that it
would be totally impossible for the chemical compounds needed for life
to be produced outside in the open air. If oxygen was present, amino
acids, etc., could not have been formed. So, in desperation, they have
decided that at some earlier time in earth’s history, there was no
oxygen—anywhere in the world! And then later it somehow arrived on
the planet!

"At that time, the ‘free’ production of organic
matter by ultraviolet light was effectively turned off and a premium
was placed on alternative energy utilization mechanisms. This was a
major evolutionary crisis. I find it remarkable that any organism
survived it."—*Carl Sagan, The Origins, p. 253.

But there is a special reason why they would prefer
to avoid a reducing atmosphere: There is no evidence anywhere in
nature that our planet ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere! And there
is no theory that can explain how it could earlier have had a reducing
(non-oxygen) atmosphere,—which later transformed itself into an
oxidizing one! As *Urey himself admitted, a non-oxygen atmosphere is
just an assumption—a flight of imagination—in an effort to accommodate
the theory (*Harold Urey, "On the Early Chemical History of the Earth
and the Origin of Life," in Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science, 38, 1952, p. 352).

*Stanley Miller was one of the pioneers in laboratory
synthesis of non-living amino acids in bottles with a non-oxygen
(reducing) atmosphere. (He was afterward hailed by the press as having
"created life.") Miller later said the theory that the earth once
had no oxygen is just "speculation" (*Stanley L. Miller, "Production
of Some Organic Compounds under Possible Primitive Conditions," in
Journal of the American Chemical Society, 7, 1955, p. 2351).

A "reducing atmosphere" could have had methane,
hydrogen, ammonia, and nitrogen. An oxidizing atmosphere,
such as now exists, would have carbon dioxide, water, nitrogen,
and oxygen.

(1) A reducing (non-oxygen) atmosphere never
existed earlier on our planet; yet, without it, biological chemicals
could not form. (2) If a reducing atmosphere had existed, so
biological chemicals could form (and if they could somehow be injected
with life), they would immediately die from lack of oxygen!

Here are some of the reasons against a reducing atmosphere:

(1)Oxidized iron.Early rocks
contain partly or totally oxidized iron (ferric oxide). That
proves that the atmosphere had oxygen back then.

(2) Water means oxygen.A
reducing atmosphere could not have oxygen. But there is oxygen—lots of
it—in water and in the atmosphere. According to *Brinkman, this
fact alone disproves the origins of life by evolution (*R.T.
Brinkman, "Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the
Terrestrial Atmosphere," Journal of Geophysical Research, 74, 1969, p.
5366). Are the evolutionists daring to tell us that, anciently, our
planet had no water? No water above, on, or under the planet?

(3)No Life without it.How long would animals
live without oxygen to breathe? How long would plants live without
carbon dioxide? Without it, they could not make chlorophyll. When plants
take in carbon dioxide, they give out oxygen. But
a reducing atmosphere has neither oxygen nor carbon dioxide!
Therefore no plants could either live or be available for food. In
addition, plants need oxygen for cellular respiration.

(4)Deadly peroxides.A reduction
atmosphere would form, through the photolysis of water, into peroxides,
which are deadly to living creatures (*Abelson, "Some Aspects of
Paleobiochemistry, "in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 69,
1957, p. 275).

(5) No ozone layer.If there were no
oxygen in the atmosphere, there would be no ozone either. Without
the ozone layer, ultraviolet light would destroy whatever life was
formed.

(6) Ultraviolet light.Ironically, it
could do more damage in an atmosphere without oxygen. Just as oxygen in
the air would destroy the chemicals of life, ultraviolet light
beaming in through a sky unshielded by ozone would be deadly!

Recent studies of the ozone layer have revealed that,
without it, most living organisms now on our planet would die within an
hour, and many within a second or two!

(7) Not with or without.Evolutionists
are locked into a situation here that they cannot escape from.
Spontaneous generation could not occur with oxygen, and it could not
occur without it!

FORMULA FOR THE PRIMITIVE ATMOSPHERE—Our
present atmosphere (the air which we breathe) is composed of carbon
dioxide (C02),
nitrogen (N2), oxygen (02),
and water (H20).

The generally postulated primitive atmosphere would
have had to have been composed of almost totally different chemicals:
methane (CH4), carbon
monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3),
nitrogen (N2), hydrogen (H2),
and water (H20).

INSTANT ATMOSPHERIC CHANGE—As you might
imagine, all this bad news brought evolutionary origins to something of
a crisis, especially the problem about the atmosphere.

So the intransigent evolutionists came up with the
wild theory that at the very instant when life was created on earth,—at
that instant it just so happened that the entire world changed its
atmosphere! It dramatically shifted suddenly from reducing to
oxidizing!

But this possibility collapsed when a *University of
Chicago study found that the plants could not suddenly have made all
that oxygen,—and the oxygen had nowhere else to come from! If all
the plants NOW
on earth were suddenly formed on Day One on our planet, it would still
take them 5000 years to produce as much oxygen as we now have!

However, the plants were not there at that time, and
whatever plants might have been there would all have died soon after,
since they themselves need oxygen for their own cellular respiration.

In order to avoid the problem of mass action
degradation of amino acids formed in seawater, someone else
suggested that the amino acids were made in dry clays and rocks. But in
that environment either the oxygen or ultraviolet light would
immediately destroy those amino acids.

UNUSUAL CHEMICALS—Men began to
beat their brains against the wall, trying to figure out a way for those
amino acids to form by themselves in the primitive environment.

*Sidney Fox suggested that the amino acids were made
on the edges of volcanoes, *Melvin Calvin decided that
dicyanimide (a compound not naturally occurring in nature) did
the job, and *Shramm declared that phosphorus pentoxide in a
jar of etherdid it! Another research worker came up
with an even more deadly solution: hydrogen cyanide—as the
environment in which all the amino acids made themselves.

But again tragedy struck: It was discovered that the volcanic heat
would ruin the amino acids as soon as they were formed. Phosphorus
pentoxide is a novel compound that could not possibly be found in
earth’s primitive atmosphere. The hydrogen cyanide would require
an atmosphere of ammonia, which geological evidence shows never
existed in our atmosphere. Dicyanimide would not work, because
the original mixture in which the first amino acids were made had to
have a more alkaline pH.

On and on it goes, one conjecture after another;
always searching for the magic mixture and fairyland environment needed
to make life out of nothing.

"Every time I write a paper on the origin of
life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is
too much speculation running after too few facts."—*Francis
Crick, Life Itself (1981), p. 153. [*Crick received a Nobel Prize
for discovering the structure of DNA.]

6 - THE LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS

THE MILLER EXPERIMENT—It was
*Stanley Miller in 1953 who first produced amino acids from chemicals.
We want to know how he did it, for THAT
is the way the so-called "primitive environment" would have had to do it
by merest chance:

The laboratory apparatus he used to accomplish this
consisted of two confluently interconnected, chemical flasks (or
bottles), arranged one above the other. The lower flask was heated and
contained boiling water. The upper flask contained a mixture of gases
including ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapor. (The upper flask
had the presumed "primitive atmosphere," since it was known that if
oxygen were present, the experiment would be a failure.)

First, he boiled a mixture of water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen
gases in the upper bottle while a small electric spark continually
played over them all. (That was supposed to be equivalent to a gigantic
lightning ball in the primitive environment which might strike the spot
once every so many years, instantly destroying everything it touched.)
The lower bottle of water was kept boiling in order to keep the mixture
in the upper bottle stirred up and circulating. (The "primitive ocean"
must have been pretty hot!) There was a trap in the bottom of the glass
apparatus to catch any soluble organic products, so they would not be
broken down after formation by the spark. (Chemists knew that the Law of
Mass Action would almost immediately have destroyed the amino acids that
were formed, without a trap to catch them in quickly. The "primitive
ocean" must have had similar bottle traps in it.)

After a week of this, the fluid in the traps were
chemically analyzed—and were found to have microscopic traces of a few L
and D (right- and left-handed) nitrogen-containing compounds—"amino
acids," they called them—which had been formed. (Of course, if both L
and D amino acids were formed by chemical action—as they always are when
formed outside of living cells—it would be impossible for the amino acid
which formed to be useable for life purposes.)

Newspapers around the world heralded the news:
"Life has been created!" But no life had been created, just a few
biochemical compounds. Remember that neither nitrogen compounds nor
amino acids are, of themselves, living things. Just because they are in
living things, does not make them living things.

In summary then, *Stanley Miller’s experiment was one
of the early origin-of-life attempts. It used a reducing atmosphere
(with no oxygen in it). A significant part of his experiment was a "cold
trap." This was a glass cup at the bottom of the tubing that caught the
products of the week-long water-chemical-spark activity. The purpose of
the trap was to keep the reaction going in the right direction. If it
had not been there, the simple amino acids would have been destroyed
faster than they could be made!

" ‘This is the primitive atmosphere,’ said
Stanley Miller, the chemistry professor at the University of
California at San Diego, as he pointed to the transparent mixture of
gases inside the globe. ‘And this represents the primitive ocean,’
he said, indicating a pool of water in the bottom of his
apparatus."—*Rick Gore, "Awesome Worlds Within a Cell, "National
Geographic Society, September 1976, p. 390.

What does that complicated lab experiment have to say about the
possibility of nature doing it by accident—without the help of man?
Outdoors, it could not be done without his help—or with it.

"What we ask is to synthesize organic molecules
without such a machine. I believe this to be the most stubborn
problem that confronts us—the weakest link at present in our
argument."—*G. Wald, "The Origin of Life," in the Physics and
Chemistry of Life (1955), p. 9.

The test tube attempts to "create life" have only
resulted in dismal failure.

"In 1953, at the University of Chicago, Stanley
L. Miller and Harold C. Urey mixed ammonia, water vapor, hydrogen
and methane to simulate Earth’s early atmosphere, then crackled
lightning-like electrical sparks through it . .

"Unfortunately, as Margolis admits, ‘no cell has
yet crawled out of a test tube,’ and thousands of similar
experiments have produced goopy organic tars, but no recognizable
life. Decades of persistent failure to ‘create life’ by the ‘spark
in the soup’ method (or to find such productions in nature) have
caused some researchers to seek other approaches to the great enigma
. . [He then discussed panspermia theories: the possibility of
bacteria flying in from outer space.]"—*Richard Milner,
Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 274.

NOT LEFT-HANDED AMINO ACIDS—Every
type of protein in animals is left-handed (L-aminos).
None are ever right-handed (D-aminos). Yet all amino acids
synthesized in laboratories consist of an equal amount of left- and
right-handed amino acids (a racemic mixture). It would
require days of work in the laboratory to separate just a few L from D
forms.Researchers cannot figure out how to produce only the L
form. Yet no animals or man could live if they had any of the D
form in them. This is a major problem to the evolutionists. More
on this in the next chapter.

NOT THE ESSENTIAL AMINO ACIDS—Out of the
hundreds of possible combinations, there are 20 essential amino acids,
yet laboratory synthesis of amino acids produces only a few of the
20 essential amino acids—plus a lot of non-essential or even useless
ones.

THE OPARIN EXPERIMENT—Prior
to *Miller, *A.I. Oparin, a Russian chemist, tried to produce living
cells from coacervates, which are like fat droplets in a bowl of
soup. He carefully kept all oxygen away from the soup and the bowl,
and he hoped that, given enough time, they would join together and,
somehow, life would enter into them! But the outer film kept breaking
apart, and no life entered into them. *Oparin was disappointed. No
reputable chemist today considers Oparin’s theory to be of any value.

THE FOX EXPERIMENTS—After
*Miller’s experiment, *Sydney Fox in 1960 worked out a different
arrangement, but he began his with left-handed amino acids already
formed. He took them from a dead animal! He claims that his method is
how it was done in the primitive environment. This should have been
good news for the evolutionary world; but, when we learn his complicated
procedure, we can understand why few scientists have any faith in the
possibility that the Fox procedure was done by chance in the ocean, near
a volcano, or in a mud puddle.

Here is how nature, armed with time and chance, is
supposed to have produced that first dead amino acid:

"Typical panpolymenzation: Ten grams of L. glutamic acid (a
left-handed amino acid] was heated at l75o-l80o C [347°-356° F) until
molten (about 30 minutes), after which period it had been largely
converted to lactum. At this time, 10 g. [.352 ay. oz.] of DL-aspartic
acid and 5 g. [.176 ay. oz.] of the mixture of the sixteen basic and
neutral (BN) amino acids were added. The solution was then maintained at
170° + or -2° under an atmosphere of nitrogen for varying periods
of time. Within a period of a few hours considerable gas had been
evolved, and the color of the liquid changed to amber. The vitreous
mixture was rubbed vigorously with 75 ml. [4.575 Cu. in.] of water,
which converted it to
a yellow-brown granular precipitate. After overnight standing, the solid
was separated by filtration. This was washed with 50 ml. [3.05 cu. in.]
of ethanol, and as substance S dialytically washed in moving
Multidialyzers in water for 4 days, the water being changed thrice
daily. (The term dialytic washing indicates dialytic treatment of a
suspension.) In some preparations, the solid was dissolved completely in
sodium bicarbonate solution and then dialyzed. The dialysis sacs were
made of cellulose tubing, 27/32 in., to contain 50 ml. [3.05 cu. in.].
The nondiffusible material was ninhydrin-negative before the fourth day.
The non-aqueous contents of the dialysis sac were mainly solid A and a
soluble fraction B recovered as solid by concentration in a vacuum
dissicator. The mother liquor of S was also dialyzed for 4 days, and
then dried to give additional solid C."—*S.W.
Fox and *K. Harada, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 82 (1960),
p. 3745.

We commend *Sydney Fox and his associates for
their remarkable intelligence and excellent lab equipment, days of
exhausting work, and the university scientists who trained them to
perform such experiments. But we can make no such commendation of sand,
gravel, and seawater, which is supposed to have done the same thing by
itself.

Fox began with a quantity of left-only (no right)
amino acids and made sure no oxygen, sugars, etc. were present, since
they would doom the experiment. Then he underwent a lot of tedious work
that requires a high degree of intelligence, careful planning, and many
adjustments with pH, temperature, cooking time, etc. as he proceeded
with a staff of assistants.

Fox is modest about his abilities; for he says that
random events, in a broad sea or on the slopes of a volcano, could have
done it just as easily. But he
began with pure, left-handed amino acids,
which are available nowhere outside of living things; he did not begin
with pebbles, mud, and water.

Fox then heated the amino acids for 10 hours at 150°-180° C
[302°-356° F]. That is a pretty hot way to make amino acids!

Where would you find such conditions in nature? *Stanley
Miller, who first synthesized amino acids in a laboratory later stated
that his own experiment could not possibly have been done by chance
outside of a modern laboratory. Other scientists have agreed.

"Such experiments are no more than exercises in
organic chemistry."—*P. Mora, "The Folly of Probability," in
Origins of Prebiological Systems and their Molecular Matrices,
Ed. *S.W. Fox (1965), p. 41.

Three key ingredients are (1) proper chemicals in
exacting amounts, (2) a continuous energy source (such as a continuous
spark), and (3) quick-dry apparatus. As soon as the amino acids
are made, they must immediately be dried out. (Living tissue
never contains dried out amino acids or comes from it.) Fox tells us the
reaction must be "hot and dry" (op. cit., p. 378).

"To keep a reaction going according to the law of
mass action, there must be a continuous supply of energy and of
selected matter (molecules) and a continuous process of elimination
of the reaction products."—Op. cit., p. 43.

And there is a fourth key ingredient: Whether done
in nature, or by researchers in a high-tech laboratory, these life
substances are always the result of careful organization with
specific purposes by a high-level intelligence. No one
tosses the chemicals into a pan in the laboratory, walks off, hoping it
will produce amino acids all by itself.

A living organism is not just dried out ocean soup.
It is highly integrated, complex, and purposive. —It has life,
which no man can produce. And that living creature had to have all
its parts on Day One of its existence. And it had to have a mate and be
able to reproduce offspring.

Not even *Darwin could figure it out.

"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his [book]
On the Origin of Species."—*David Kitts, "Paleontology and
Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 466.

7 - THE MIRACLE OF LIFE

Reputable scientists tell us that life could neither
originate nor continue—without intelligence being involved.

"Any living thing possesses an enormous amount of
‘intelligence’ . . Today, this ‘intelligence’ is called
‘information,’ but it is still the same thing . . This
‘intelligence’ is the sine qua non of life. If absent, no
living being is imaginable. Where does it come from? This is a
problem which concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at
present, science seems incapable of solving it."—*Pierre-Paul
Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 3.

A Nobel Prize laureate wrote this:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge
available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin
of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."—*Francis
Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88
[co-discoverer of the DNA molecule].

Even *Sydney Fox, the researcher who went through so
much scientific rigmarole to make amino acids out of amino acids, admits
it:

"The present laws of physics . . are insufficient
to describe the origin of life. To him this opens the way to
teleology, even, by implication, to creation by an intelligent agent
. . If he thinks he has shown conclusively that life cannot have
originated by chance, only two rational alternatives remain. The
first is that it did not arise at all and that all we are studying
is an illusion."—*S.W. Fox, The Origins of Prebiological Systems
and Their Molecular Matrices (1965), pp. 35-55.

Another Nobel Prize laureate and, like the others, a
confirmed evolutionist made this comment:

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look
into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We
all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead
matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is
hard for us to imagine that it did."—*Harold C. Urey, quoted in
Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4.

THE MAGIC FORMULA—The
formula for the evolutionary origin and development of life goes
something like this:

NOTHING + TIME + CHANCE = "SIMPLE" CELL

ONE CELL + TIME + CHANCE = MAN

Is this modern science or is it a fairy tale? It is
an astounding thought that all modern biological, genetic, and
geological science is keyed to such a mythical formula.

One evolutionist explains in philosophical rhetoric
how it all happened:

"Randomness caught on the wing, preserved,
reproduced . . and thus converted into order, rule, necessity. A
totally blind process can by definition lead to anything; it can
even lead to vision itself."—*Bur, quoted in *Jacques Monod,
Chance and Necessity (1972), p. 98.

That is neither true nor scientific. If randomness
can produce such living wonders as are all about us, then highly
intelligent scientists, working in well-equipped laboratories, ought to
be able to produce eyes, ears, and entirely new species in a few months’
time.

The Great Evolutionary Myth is that randomness plus
time can do anything; the Truth is that randomness, with or without
time, can accomplish almost nothing. And those changes which it does
accomplish will quickly be blotted out by the next random action or
two,—that is, if they are constructive changes. If they are
erosional, they will remain much longer.

Throughout inorganic nature we see randomness
producing decay and inertness; we do not find it building houses and,
then, installing the plumbing in them.

"All the facile speculations and discussions published during the
last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have
been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight.
The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was."—*Francis
Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 68.

THE EVOLUTIONARY ORIGIN OF LIFE IN A NUTSHELL—The
origin of life by random means is an impossibility. Only evolutionists
and the authors of children’s fairy tales say otherwise.

The following evolutionary five-step theoretical
program of events consists of little more than armchair guessing
combined with Alice in Wonderland hopefulness. Here it is:

"Evolution Model for the Origin of Life on the
Earth:

"According to the evolution model, the story of
life on the earth began some five billion years ago and gradually
unfolded through a series of five stages:

"Stage 1.Evolutionists have
imagined that the atmosphere of the early earth was quite different
from the present atmosphere. In contrast to the present oxidizing
atmosphere, which contains 21 percent free oxygen (02),
78 percent nitrogen (N2),
and 1 percent of other gases, supposedly the early earth was
surrounded by a reducing atmosphere made up mostly of methane (CHi),
ammonia (NH3), hydrogen
(H3), and water vapor (H20).

"Stage 2. Because of ultraviolet
light, electric discharge, and high-energy particle bombardment of
molecules in a reducing atmosphere, stage 2 came about with the
formation of small organic molecules such as sugars, amino acids,
and nucleotides.

"Stage 3.Presuming all of this
happened billions of years ago in a reducing atmosphere, then stage
3 is imagined during which combinations of various small stage 2
molecules resulted in formation of large polymers such as starches,
proteins, and nucleic acids (DNA).

"Stage
4. These large molecules supposedly joined together into a
gel-like glob called coacervates or microspheres. Possibly
these coacervates attracted smaller molecules so that new structures,
called proto-cells, might have formed.

"Stage 5. Evolutionists believe
that finally, at least one of these globs absorbed the right
molecules so that complex molecules could be duplicated within new
units called living cells. These first cells consumed molecules left
over from earlier states, but eventually photosynthesis appeared in
cells, in some way, and oxygen was released into the atmosphere. As
the percentage of oxygen in the early atmosphere increased, most of
the known forms of life on the earth today began to appear. Because
of the presence of oxygen, these early life forms destroyed all the
molecules from earlier stages, and no more chemical evolution was
possible."—John N. Moore, "Teaching about Origin Questions:
Origin of Life on Earth," in Creation Research Society Quarterly,
June 1985, page 21.

APPLYING MATH TO IT—*Sir
Fred Hoyle, the famous British mathematician and astronomer, teamed up
with *Chandra Wickramasinghe in an analysis of the origin of life
and the possibility that it could possibly have begun by chance.

*Hoyle is an evolutionist, and *Wickramasinghe a
Buddhist. They mathematically determined that the likelihood that
a single cell could originate in a primitive environment, given 4.6
billion years in which to do it,—was one chance in 1040000!
That is one chance in 1 with 40 thousand zeros after it!
(*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, 1981, p.
28).

Everything would suddenly have to be there all at
once. It would all have to work perfectly, and it would have to split
and divide into new cells immediately, and reproduce offspring quickly.
And, of course, it would have to be alive!

Living forms are too awesome to relegate to the tender mercies of
time and chance. It took special design, special thinking, special power
to make living beings.

And that brings us to the next chapter: the
incredible wonders of DNA and the impossibility of it accidentally
making itself out of chance, gravel, mud, and water.

SEARCH FOR LIFE IN OUTER SPACE—(*#5/2
Searching for Life Elsewhere*)Evolutionists are rabid about
proving their theory. For over 30 years, working through the
National Science Foundation and other agencies, they have gotten the
U.S. Government to spend vast amounts of money on attempts to achieve
their goal. They are searching for life forms on other planets.

First, we will tell you of the multimillion-dollar
projects. Then we will give you the warning:

"Bioastronomy" and "exobiology" are the
studies of life in outer space. These are the only fields of "science"
without evidence or subject matter. Researchers in these fields are
trying to detect signals from outer space that would imply an
intelligent source. Here is a brief listing of 15 of the projects funded
by the United States. The search for life was not always the sole
objective of each of these projects:

Ozma 1—1960 - $1 million - A Green Bank radio
telescope probe of two nearby stars (Epsilon Eridoni and Tau
Ceti) for signals indicating intelligent life. Result: No signals
detected.

Apollo—1969-1972 - $30 billion - Exploration of
the moon, in the hope of finding evidences of life. Result: No life
detected.

Pioneer 10—1972 - Cost not available - This
interspace probe was sent out beyond our solar system in the hope that
intelligent beings would find it and contact us. A plaque is inside it.
Result: No life/signals detected.

Ozma 11—1973 - Cost not available - 500 of the
closest stars have been monitored for intelligent radio signals. Result:
No signals detected.

Arecibo—1974 - Cost not available - This, the
largest radio telescope on earth, was constructed for the purpose of
continuously monitoring nearby stars for signals. Result: No signals
detected.

National Radio Astronomy Observatory—1974 - Cost not available -
The NRAO scanned 10 nearby stars for intelligent signals. Result: No
signals detected.

Two Viking landers—1977 - $1 billion - These two
landers were sent out in the hope of finding evidences of life on the
planet Mars. Result: No life detected.

Voyager 1 and 2—1977 - Cost not available
- Probes sent to outer planets, each carrying detailed messages from
earth. Result: No life/signals detected.

Pioneer Venus—1977 - $230 million - Probes sent
to planet Venus to measure atmospheric conditions and the possibility of
life on its surface. Result: No life detected.

Very Large Array—1980 - $78 billion - 27 radio
antennas constructed in New Mexico. They are probing for evidence of
organic molecules in interstellar gas. Result: No life detected.

Mariner—1980- Cost not available - This
probe was specifically designed to analyze Saturn’s largest moon for
signs of life. Result: No life/signals detected.

Cyclops—1990s - $20 billion - A large array of
radio telescopes, each 100 meters [109 yds.] in diameter. Result: Not
constructed yet. "Such an array would detect radio beams of the kind
Earth, is inadvertently leaking at a distance of a hundred light-years,
and should detect a deliberately aimed radio wave beacon from another
civilization at a distance of a thousand light-years."—*Asimov’s New
Guide to Science (1984), pp. 648-649.

A WARNING FROM ROSS—Hugh
Ross, an astrophysicist at Caltech, did some checking; and, about the
year 1989, he came up with an intriguing observation. Immense pressure
has been placed on the U.S. Government and NASA to fund, at enormous
expense, a manned voyage to Mars. Ross has discovered a primary reason
for this seemingly senseless waste of money.

As you may know, winds carry small living creatures, such as microbes
and spiders, to high atmospheric levels. Ross says that solar winds
are able to waft particles of formerly living substances out of our
high-level atmosphere—and blow them away from the sun, outward into
space. Ross declares that some of the particles, caught in Mar’s
gravitational field, could well have landed on the surface of Mars.

He believes that evolutionists are well-aware of this
possibility, and that they want to send that manned flight to Mars to
recover those particles. The main objective of the mission would be
to find dead life forms on the surface of Mars, and then use that as
"evidence" that life once must have independently evolved on Mars! It is
felt that this would provide a powerful boost to the evolutionary cause.

We have here another example of evolutionary deceit
at work; and such a "discovery" may occur within the next decade or two.

EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS

Scientists estimate that over 400 million-million horsepower of solar
energy reaches the earth every day. Photosynthesis is the process
by which sunlight is transformed into carbohydrates (the basis of
all the food on our planet). This takes place in the chloroplasts.

Each one is lense-shaped, something like an almost flat cone with the
rounded part on the upper side. Sunlight enters from above. Inside the
chloroplast are tiny cylinders, called lamelliae, that look
something like the small circular batteries used in small electrical
devices.

Each cylinder is actually a stack of several disk-shaped
thylakolds. Each thylakold is the shape of a coin. Several of these
are stacked on top of each other, and this makes a single stack, or
lamelium. A small narrow band connects each stack to another stack.
They look like they are all wired like a bunch of batteries.

Sunlight is processed by chlorophyll in those stacks, and is then
stored (!) there as chemical energy in the form of sugar molecules.
Chlorophyll, itself, is very complicated and never exists outside of the
plant, just as DNA and ten thousands of other chemical structures never
exist outside plants and/or animals. If they are not found outside, how
did they ever get inside?

In many plants, the tiny disks containing chlorophyll move about
within plant cells and adjust for different light and heat conditions.
When the sunlight is too strong, the little disks turn edgewise. On an
overcast day, they lie as parallel to the sky as they can in order to
take in the most light. They have brains?

CHAPTER 7 - STUDY AND REVIEW QUESTIONS

THE PRIMITIVE ENVIRONMENT

GRADES 5 TO 12 ON A GRADUATED SCALE

1 - List 3 reasons why water could not change itself
into an animal.

2 - Discuss with your class the reasons why
evolutionists are desperately trying to figure out a way that water
could change itself into an animal.

3 - List at least 10 body organs or functions that
would need to instantly be present and fully operating, in order for a
living creature to not die within 3 minutes.

4 - Scientists generally agree that spontaneous
generation of living creatures from non-living materials cannot happen.
Is there any way, other than by spontaneous generation, that non-living
materials could make themselves into a living organism?

5 - Evolutionists only offer lightning as a possible
energy source for the formation of the first living creature. Why would
lightning not be able to accomplish the needed task? Where would that
first living creature afterward be able to find food to give it
nourishment and provide it with an ongoing energy source?

6 - List six reasons why the oxygen problem (oxygen
in water or oxygen in the atmosphere) would eliminate the possibility of
a life form coming into existence from non-living materials.

7 - Could the oxygen problem—alone—be enough to doom
to failure the chance formation of life?

8 - Declaring that "life had been created!" the
Miller experiment was said to have provided important evidence about the
possibility of [non-living] proteins initially forming themselves from
non-living materials. What did the Miller experiment actually reveal?

9 - The facts about left- and right-handed amino
acids provide important evidence regarding the possibility of non-living
materials making themselves randomly into protein. Explain why
left-handed amino acids are a great wall forbidding the chance formation
of living protein.

10 - List several reasons why the Miller experiment could not be
duplicated by raw materials out in nature.